Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:32:42 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, wollman@lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: <sys/queue.h> Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.93.961021100431.20316B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199610202112.OAA04687@austin.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, John Polstra wrote: > > >Don't do that, then. It's horrid style anyway (IMAO), and you > > >/certainly/ don't see any native Berkeley code doing that. The style > > >guide should discourage the practice if it doesn't already. > > > > I agree. Typedef should only be used for scalar types and function > > types. > > Why do you say that? There's already precedent for using typedefs > for structs in, for example, the "DIR" type of <dirent.h>. And it > is in line with C++ practice, where the struct, class, or union > keyword is almost never used outside of the declaration. (I know, > this is C, not C++. But the idea that the name of a type should > not carry unnecessary information about its representation is a > valid one.) It's questionable to define a typedef just to save typing the word struct. Regards, Mike Hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.93.961021100431.20316B-100000>